WAG Buckeye gymnast-- Go fund me

[flippin out]

What would be a violation is if a local company provided sponsorship for an athlete in exchange for using the athlete for marketing purposes.

So, you're saying that it IS ok for a local company to provide a sponsorship IF they expect nothing in return? Say Bob's Auto Parts wants to donate $1500 to cover Suzy's meet fees for the season (not expecting Suzy to wear a shirt saying Bob's Auto Parts or to appear in a commercial or anything)......that's ok?

 

[duyetanh]

I always like that "verbal" committment...at 14. does that mean anything??

Girl isn't even in high school yet... has to get the grades, stay healthy, stay motivated, etc. Such a long way off!

This. From my kid researching the net, she says 12 year olds have verbals. Um, before puberty?
Please.

 

[coachmolly]

So, you're saying that it IS ok for a local company to provide a sponsorship IF they expect nothing in return? Say Bob's Auto Parts wants to donate $1500 to cover Suzy's meet fees for the season (not expecting Suzy to wear a shirt saying Bob's Auto Parts or to appear in a commercial or anything)......that's ok?

I'm not 100% sure about the ins and outs of corporate sponsorships, but I think there are ways for them to be arranged for an athlete to remain eligible for NCAA. Like if they sponsor the gym rather than a certain athlete and the gym can delegate those funds how they see fit. I do know that funds can be accepted to cover training expenses and I don't think the fact that those funds come through grants/scholarships/etc. really matters all that much as long as it's not a professional contract. The Pink Invitational in Pennsylvania awards grant money to athletes who have a family member with cancer, USAG offers grants to go towards athlete assistance through the Nastia Liukin Fund, and I'm sure there are others. I imagine such big programs would have done their fact checking before initiating them.
I think Go Fund Me type pages would be viewed in a similar light as friends/family chipping in towards training expenses, albeit in a much more public light. And I wouldn't be surprised if the NCAA adapts their regulations to include such things in the future. I would also keep in mind that the coaches at Buckeye are well experienced in high level gymnastics and getting kids into NCAA gym, so I have no doubt they know the rules, or at the very least who to ask if they have a question. Considering she already committed to Florida, I am guessing the coaches are in communication with the Florida coaches and can double check things like this with them.

I think a much more concerning and risky trend are the girls with revenue earning Youtube pages.

 

[Deleted member 18037]

A verbal is essentially a maybe. As in yes if all the stars align in the next few years, and the house of cards stay up.

 

[skschlag]

A verbal is essentially a maybe. As in yes if all the stars align in the next few years, and the house of cards stay up.

Yeah..I know what a verbal is. Think a verbal for a 14 year old is ridiculous

 

[Deleted member 18037]

Yeah..I know what a verbal is. Think a verbal for a 14 year old is ridiculous

I knew you were being sarcastic, just agreeing

 

[tomtnt]

https://www.skiracing.com/stories/ncaa-clarifies-rules-on-crowdfunding-regarding-eligibility

 

[flippin out]

https://www.skiracing.com/stories/ncaa-clarifies-rules-on-crowdfunding-regarding-eligibility

That's awesome....thanks for the link

 

[Iwannabemargo]

While I agree with what you're saying about favoring athletes from higher income families, I would argue that to even GET to a point where an athlete can get a USAG stipend requires being from a higher income family as a general rule. I understand there are exceptions, but higher level gymnastics is NOT cheap, and unless a gymnast shows immense talent at a young age, I don't think they have a shot of gyms taking a chance on them to even get them to that point in the first place. So while it may be brutally unfair to create a rule like that, the system as it sits is already brutally unfair.

I remember listening to a BBC Radio 4 interview with the current British junior tennis champion's mum a few years back. She said "my son is the current champ because he works hard, has natural talent, but mostly because we can afford it. I have no doubt there are many more talented children who will never pick up a racquet because they cannot afford to. "

I also remember Lynford Christie talking about his scheme "Street runner" I think it was. Linford was a British 100m sprinter. He set up some courses in car parks in disadvantaged areas of big UK cities and got local kids to train and race against UK juniors. He said there was one guy, rolled up in his baggy jeans and just blew the juniors away, serious talent. Lynford said hey dude, come and train, you could be in the Olympics, he just said, nah mate, its not for the likes of me and wondered back into the crowd.

Talent is necessary, but opportunity is vital.

 

[Muddlethru]

Yeah..I know what a verbal is. Think a verbal for a 14 year old is ridiculous

Indeed it is. However, that's how young they have to start to secure a scholarship at the top D1 colleges.

 

[skschlag]

Indeed it is. However, that's how young they have to start to secure a scholarship at the top D1 colleges.

This secures nothing though. They can't talk to her again for years. And a verbal is worth the paper it is written on. There is no obligation on either side.

 

[Muddlethru]

This secures nothing though. They can't talk to her again for years. And a verbal is worth the paper it is written on. There is no obligation on either side.

I disagree and that is not true that they cannot talk to the gymnast for years. They can talk to the gymnast everyday if they want to. They can't call the gymnast but the gymnast can call them anytime. They can reach out to the club coach and ask the coach to have the gymnast call them or visit them. It is true that there have been instances where either the gymnast or the college has gone back on their word for whatever reason. However for the most part verbal commitment sticks. Colleges don't want to be known to constantly not honor verbal commitments.

 

[Muddlethru]

• Many will say verbal commitments are not worth the paper they are written on yet majority of gymnasts at the top D1 college enters into a verbal commitment prior to signing Why? Because they mean something.

I also would not be surprised if this commitment is legally enforceable. Verbal contracts are legally enforceable. I think if they can prove damages, negligence, malice and are willing to go through legal proceedings, they may have a case.

 

[tomtnt]

This secures nothing though. They can't talk to her again for years. And a verbal is worth the paper it is written on. There is no obligation on either side.

I'm curious if you had any stats on how often colleges don't honor their verbals? conversely, how often do gymnasts not honor their commitment and are recruited by other colleges.

If it's only worth the paper it's written on - you would think the system wouldn't work at all and no one would bother making any verbal commitments if that were the case. yet, here we have most major programs making verbals at the freshman and sophomore year. looking at the recent NLI day signings for UCLA and CAL for example - many of their recruits that signed their NLI committed in 2013 - looks like both sides kept their word.

 

[Muddlethru]

My sentiments exactly. ^^^^^. And there are likely no statistics because not honoring a verbal commitment by the gymnast or the college is not that common. If you get one or two in a year, that is plent; and that is usually with good cause.

 

[txgymfan]

https://www.skiracing.com/stories/ncaa-clarifies-rules-on-crowdfunding-regarding-eligibility

That sounds like the mention of her gymnastics makes this questionable but the first part lakes it sound ok. I'm confused.

 

[skschlag]

I know that a verbal commitment is just that....a "gentlemen's agreement". Either party can opt out of it. Look at Laurie as an example. She had a verbal agreement with Florida that is now gone. It is a non-binding verbal agreement.

I am not saying that a large percentage of kiddos do not honor them, or that colleges do not. But a verbal at 14? She has probably 4 years of school left. If her grades are not up to par, the college can walk away. She could be really good and go pro, leaving her "verbal commitment"

My point is that verbal commitments are non-binding, and ridiculous at 14. I get that it's "how gymnastics works", but it is definitely not a legally binding agreement.

 

[Muddlethru]

I know that a verbal commitment is just that....a "gentlemen's agreement". Either party can opt out of it. Look at Laurie as an example. She had a verbal agreement with Florida that is now gone. It is a non-binding verbal agreement.

I am not saying that a large percentage of kiddos do not honor them, or that colleges do not. But a verbal at 14? She has probably 4 years of school left. If her grades are not up to par, the college can walk away. She could be really good and go pro, leaving her "verbal commitment"

My point is that verbal commitments are non-binding, and ridiculous at 14. I get that it's "how gymnastics works", but it is definitely not a legally binding agreement.

While verbal commitments are explicitly non-binding agreements between the parties (limiting the legal claims that can be raised), there are some potential remedies available for those student-athletes who are injured by an institutions oversigning practices or other unfulfilled promises. One option is the doctrine of promissory estoppel. Like I stated, as long as the gymnast can prove damages, negligence, etc., they may have a case.

Promissory estoppel is defined as "[a] promise which the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance on the part of the promisee or a third person and which does induce such action or forbearance is binding if injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise."2 In other words, the doctrine is invoked when Party X relies on a promise from Party Y to the detriment of Party X. A written agreement is often not necessary to prove promissory estoppel.3 Typically, the difficulty in a promissory estoppel claim is proving the existence of a promise. Student-athletes, however, have very few problems proving that they were promised a football scholarship by an institution. As such, a number of jilted recruits have solid footing in a lawsuit, and would likely have the remaining issues resolved by a jury. Such as, (1) whether the university reasonably foresaw the prospective student-athlete relying on the scholarship promise, and (2) whether enforcement of the promise will remedy the injustice.

Another option or cause of action is Breach of Oral Contract. Lawsuits are cumbersome and expensive as we all know so many choose not to go that route and perhaps the damage is not that grave. But clearly it can be legally binding.

 

[skschlag]

http://www.ncaa.org/student-athletes/future/eligibility-center/what-verbal-commitment

According to the NCAA....Verbals are non legally binding on either side.

My point...again....14 is too young to do any commitment.

 

[skschlag]

I have read the court cases, which were different that any situation seen in gymnastics. A verbal at 14....not binding at all. She is not enrolled in the university, and a lot can happen in 4 years.

The flip side could come about. If student-athletes can sue for any of that, then can't a school? Florida could claim teh same with Laurie breaching her verbal contract with them. Some could say it would hurt their program.

My main point, verbals at 14 are ridiculous. Laurie committed in 2014. She would have been 14.